Search

Background: The ERSPC (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer) found that screening reduced prostate cancer mortality, but the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial) found no reduction.Objective: To evaluate whether effects of screening on prostate cancer mortality relative to no screening differed between the ERSPC and PLCO.Design: Cox regression of prostate cancer death in each trial group, adjusted for age and trial. Extended analyses accounted for increased incidence due to screening and diagnostic work-up in each group via mean lead times (MLTs), which were estimated empirically and using analytic or microsimulation models.Setting: Randomized controlled trials in Europe and the United States.Participants: Men aged 55 to 69 (ERSPC) or 55 to 74 (PLCO) years at randomization.Intervention: Prostate cancer screening.Measurements: Prostate cancer incidence and survival from randomization; prostate cancer incidence in the United States before screening began.Results: Estimated MLTs were similar in the ERSPC and PLCO intervention groups but were longer in the PLCO control group than the ERSPC control group. Extended analyses found no evidence that effects of screening differed between trials (P = 0.37 to 0.47 [range across MLT estimation approaches]) but strong evidence that benefit increased with MLT (P = 0.0027 to 0.0032). Screening was estimated to confer a 7% to 9% reduction in the risk for prostate cancer death per year of MLT. This translated into estimates of 25% to 31% and 27% to 32% lower risk for prostate cancer death with screening as performed in the ERSPC and PLCO intervention groups, respectively, compared with no screening.Limitation: The MLT is a simple metric of screening and diagnostic work-up.Conclusion: After differences in implementation and settings are accounted for, the ERSPC and PLCO provide compatible evidence that screening reduces prostate cancer mortality.Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the draft guidelines issued for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men. It mentions the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer which included 162,243 men under ages between 55-69 years for the study and highlights the conclusion on reduction at mortality rate among the cancer patients. It mentions the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force which conducted a literature review on draft guidelines for the cancer screening.

Dissemination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in the United States coincided with an increasing incidence of prostate cancer, a shift to earlier stage disease at diagnosis, and decreasing prostate cancer mortality. We compared PSA screening performance with respect to prostate cancer detection in the US population vs in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC–Rotterdam). We developed a simulation model for prostate cancer and PSA screening for ERSPC–Rotterdam. This model was then adapted to the US population by replacing demography parameters with US-specific ones and the screening protocol with the frequency of PSA tests in the US population. We assumed that the natural progression of prostate cancer and the sensitivity of a PSA test followed by a biopsy were the same in the United States as in ERSPC–Rotterdam. The predicted prostate cancer incidence peak in the United States was then substantially higher than the observed prostate cancer incidence peak (13.3 vs 8.1 cases per 1000 man-years). However, the actual observed incidence was reproduced by assuming a substantially lower PSA test sensitivity in the United States than in ERSPC–Rotterdam. For example, for nonpalpable local- or regional-stage cancers (ie, stage T1M0), the estimates of PSA test sensitivity were 0.26 in the United States vs 0.94 in ERSPC–Rotterdam. We conclude that the efficacy of PSA screening in detecting prostate cancer was lower in the United States than in ERSPC–Rotterdam. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91). The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial indicated no such reduction but had a wide 95% CI (rate ratio for prostate cancer mortality, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.87-1.36). Standard meta-analyses are unable to account for key differences between the trials that can impact the estimated effects of screening and the trials' point estimates., Methods: The authors calibrated 2 microsimulation models to individual-level incidence and mortality data from 238,936 men participating in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. A cure parameter for the underlying efficacy of screening was estimated by the models separately for each trial. The authors changed step-by-step major known differences in trial settings, including enrollment and attendance patterns, screening intervals, PSA thresholds, biopsy receipt, control arm contamination, and primary treatment, to reflect a more ideal protocol situation and differences between the trials., Results: Using the cure parameter estimated for the ERSPC, the models projected 19% to 21% and 6% to 8%, respectively, prostate cancer mortality reductions in the ERSPC and PLCO settings. Using this cure parameter, the models projected a reduction of 37% to 43% under annual screening with 100% attendance and biopsy compliance and no contamination. The cure parameter estimated for the PLCO trial was 0., Conclusions: The observed cancer mortality reduction in screening trials appears to be highly sensitive to trial protocol and practice settings. Accounting for these differences, the efficacy of PSA screening in the PLCO setting is not necessarily inconsistent with ERSPC results. Cancer 2018;124:1197-206. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)

Guidelines regarding recommendations for PSA screening for early detection of prostate cancer are conflicting. In 2012, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) assigned a grade of D (recommending against screening) for men aged ≥75 years in 2008 and for men of all ages in 2012. Understanding temporal trends in rates of screening before and after the 2012 recommendation in terms of usage patterns in PSA screening, changes in prostate cancer incidence and biopsy patterns, and how the recommendation has influenced physician's and men's attitudes about PSA screening and subsequent ordering of other screening tests is essential within the scope of prostate cancer screening policy. Since the 2012 recommendation, rates of PSA screening decreased by 3-10% in all age groups and across most geographical regions of the USA. Rates of prostate biopsy and prostate cancer incidence have declined in unison, with a shift towards tumours being of higher grade and stage upon detection. Despite the recommendation, some physicians report ongoing willingness to screen appropriately selected men, and many men report intending to continue to ask for the PSA test from their physician. In the coming years, we expect to have an improved understanding of whether these decreased rates of screening will affect prostate cancer metastasis and mortality.

Background: Positive surgical margins (PSMs) are a known risk factor for biochemical recurrence in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) and are potentially affected by surgical technique and volume., Objective: To investigate whether radical prostatectomy (RP) modality and volume affect PSM rates., Design, Setting, and Participants: Fourteen institutions in Europe, the United States, and Australia were invited to participate in this study, all of which retrospectively provided margins data on 9778 open RP, 4918 laparoscopic RP, and 7697 robotic RP patients operated on between January 2000 and October 2011., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analyses: The outcome measure was PSM rate. Multivariable logistic regression analyses and propensity score methods identified odds ratios for risk of a PSM for one modality compared with another, after adjustment for age, preoperative prostate-specific antigen, postoperative Gleason score, pathologic stage, and year of surgery. Classic adjustment using standard covariates was also implemented to compare PSM rates based on center volume for each minimally invasive surgical cohort., Results and Limitations: Open RP patients had higher-risk PCa at time of surgery on average and were operated on earlier in the study time period on average, compared with minimally invasive cohorts. Crude margin rates were lowest for robotic RP (13.8%), intermediate for laparoscopic RP (16.3%), and highest for open RP (22.8%); significant differences persisted, although were ameliorated, after statistical adjustments. Lower-volume centers had increased risks of PSM compared with the highest-volume center for both laparoscopic RP and robotic RP. The study is limited by its nonrandomized nature; missing data across covariates, especially year of surgery in many of the open cohort cases; lack of standardized histologic processing and central pathology review; and lack of information regarding potential confounders such as patient comorbidity, nerve-sparing status, lymph node status, tumor volume, and individual surgeon caseload., Conclusions: This multinational, multi-institutional study of 22 393 patients after RP suggests that PSM rates might be lower after minimally invasive techniques than after open RP and that PSM rates are affected by center volume in laparoscopic and robotic cases., Patient Summary: In this study, we compared the effectiveness of different types of surgery for prostate cancer by looking at the rates of cancer cells left at the margins of what was removed in the operations. We compared open, keyhole, and robotic surgery from many centers across the globe and found that robotic and keyhole operations appeared to have lower margin rates than open surgeries. How many cases a center and surgeon do seems to affect this rate for both robotic and keyhole procedures., (Copyright © 2013 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To assess the applicability of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial High Grade (Gleason grade ≥ 7) Risk Calculator (PCPTHG) in ten international cohorts, representing a range of populations., Methods: A total of 25,512 biopsies from 10 cohorts (6 European, 1 UK and 3 US) were included; 4 implemented 6-core biopsies, and the remaining had 10 or higher schemes; 8 were screening cohorts, and 2 were clinical. PCPTHG risks were calculated using prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, age, African origin and history of prior biopsy and evaluated in terms of calibration plots, areas underneath the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and net benefit curves., Results: The median AUC of the PCPTHG for high-grade disease detection in the 10- and higher-core cohorts was 73.5% (range, 63.9-76.7%) compared with a median of 78.1% (range, 72.0-87.6%) among the four 6-core cohorts. Only the 10-core Cleveland Clinic cohort showed clear evidence of under-prediction by the PCPTHG, and this was restricted to risk ranges less than 15%. The PCPTHG demonstrated higher clinical net benefit in higher-core compared with 6-core biopsy cohorts, and among the former, there were no notable differences observed between clinical and screening cohorts, nor between European and US cohorts., Conclusions: The PCPTHG requires minimal patient information and can be applied across a range of populations. PCPTHG risk thresholds ranging from 5 to 20%, depending on patient risk averseness, are recommended for clinical prostate biopsy decision-making.

Purpose: The relationship between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and prostate cancer risk remains subject to fundamental disagreements. We hypothesized that the risk of prostate cancer on biopsy for a given PSA level is affected by identifiable characteristics of the cohort under study., Experimental Design: We used data from five European and three U.S. cohorts of men undergoing biopsy for prostate cancer; six were population-based studies and two were clinical cohorts. The association between PSA and prostate cancer was calculated separately for each cohort using locally weighted scatterplot smoothing., Results: The final data set included 25,772 biopsies and 8,503 cancers. There were gross disparities between cohorts with respect to both the prostate cancer risk at a given PSA level and the shape of the risk curve. These disparities were associated with identifiable differences between cohorts: for a given PSA level, a greater number of biopsy cores increased the risk of cancer (odds ratio for >6- versus 6-core biopsy, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.54; P < 0.0005); recent screening led to a smaller increase in risk per unit change in PSA (P = 0.001 for interaction term) and U.S. cohorts had higher risk than the European cohorts (2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-2.30; P < 0.0005)., Conclusions: Our results suggest that the relationship between PSA and risk of a positive prostate biopsy varies, both in terms of the probability of prostate cancer at a given PSA value and the shape of the risk curve. This poses challenges to the use of PSA-driven algorithms to determine whether biopsy is indicated.

Dissemination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in the United States coincided with an increasing incidence of prostate cancer, a shift to earlier stage disease at diagnosis, and decreasing prostate cancer mortality. We compared PSA screening performance with respect to prostate cancer detection in the US population vs in the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC-Rotterdam). We developed a simulation model for prostate cancer and PSA screening for ERSPC-Rotterdam. This model was then adapted to the US population by replacing demography parameters with US-specific ones and the screening protocol with the frequency of PSA tests in the US population. We assumed that the natural progression of prostate cancer and the sensitivity of a PSA test followed by a biopsy were the same in the United States as in ERSPC-Rotterdam. The predicted prostate cancer incidence peak in the United States was then substantially higher than the observed prostate cancer incidence peak (13.3 vs 8.1 cases per 1000 man-years). However, the actual observed incidence was reproduced by assuming a substantially lower PSA test sensitivity in the United States than in ERSPC-Rotterdam. For example, for nonpalpable local- or regional-stage cancers (ie, stage T1M0), the estimates of PSA test sensitivity were 0.26 in the United States vs 0.94 in ERSPC-Rotterdam. We conclude that the efficacy of PSA screening in detecting prostate cancer was lower in the United States than in ERSPC-Rotterdam.